Facts are just the start of the debate

I'm not sure I followed all of this. Could you give an example of, say, Peterson's use of a fact in lieu of an argument about that fact?

The article presents a more complex picture than the title and subtitle do; but even within the article there are some problems. The title and subtitle, and some of the things said in the article, suggest that we should cede the terrain of facts to the political right-wing, which would of course be dangerous nonsense. Facts matter because truth matters-- both per se, and instrumentally: we cannot know what we need to do to achieve our goals unless we first of all establish what is true and what isn't. Working out what is true is the central point of academia. The title should have read 'Alleged facts are just the start of the debate', and the subtitle-- rather than suggesting that caring about facts is mere 'fetishism'-- should have insisted that 'Right-wing intellectuals must be constantly challenged on their alleged facts', by experts in the relevant area or people armed with the best expert knowledge. Once we've established the facts as best we can on current evidence, of course we need to move on to the next steps-- the fact that facts can change, and that we can do different things with them depending on our moral/political choices. But we do not have to and ought not to cede the starting point.